• About
    • The Magazine
    • The Foundation
    • The Collective
    • Columns
  • 2011 Calendar
  • The Dreams for Women Project
    • About
    • Postcards
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 1 – 4
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 5 – 8
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 9 – 12
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 13 -16
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 17 – 20
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 21 – 24
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 25 – 28
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 29 – 32
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 33 – 36
      • Dreams for Women Week 37 – 40
      • Dreams for Women Week 41 – 44
      • Dreams for Women Week 45 – 48
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 49 – 52
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 53 – 56
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 57– 60
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 61– 64
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 65– 68
  • Read Antigone Magazine 
  • Contact Us

Category Archives: Gay Rights

Screaming Queens: The Riot at Compton’s Cafeteria

12 Wednesday Mar 2008

Posted by antigonemagazine in film, Gay Rights, Queer Issues, UBC, women's issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

film, sexuality, transgender, UBC

UBC’s Critical Studies in Sexuality Program presents Susan Stryker (internationally recognized scholar of sexuality and gender) presents her movie “Screaming Queens”.

March 26th @ 4pm
BUCH A 205, UBC Point Grey Campus

On a hot summer’s night in 1966 in the city’s Tenderloin district, a group of transgendered women and gay street-hustlers fought back for the first time in history against everyday police harassment. This was a dramatic turning point for the transgendered community and the beginning of a new human rights struggle that continues to this day.

Come, see the move, talk with Susan!

ACCO presents "UnConference" – Spark the Dialogue! Speak Your Mind!

06 Thursday Mar 2008

Posted by kelizabethlau in Gay Rights, sexuality, vancouver events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACCO, asian-canadian, LGBT

March 6 – 7
Location: UBC, Upstairs SUB Room 207 and 209

Thursday, March 6

12:30pm to 1:50pm – ACSW 101 – “Who are Asian Canadians?” Illustrating Identity and Sports for Asian Canadians”

2:00pm to 3:20pm – ACSW 102 – “Ying, Yang, and Me!” The Complications and Implications of Interracial Dating and Interracial Families

3:30pm to 5:00pm – ACSW 116 – “Striking the Bamboo Ceiling” Asians in the North American workforce

Friday, March 7

12:00pm to 1:50pm – ACSW 202 – “Hey Asian Guy, Why So Angry?” A Look into Asian Stereotypes in Television and Film in Relation to the Feminization of Asian Males

2:00pm to 4:00pm – ACSW 212 –
“Queer + Asian = ?” Difficulties and unique challenges of being Asian in the Queer Community and being Queer in the Asian Community.

All workshops are aimed at all people who have an interest in the Asian Community, regardless if they identify as straight, queer, homosexual, gay, lesbian, questioning, bisexual,trans, Asian, of Asian descent, part-Asian, or non-Asian! Admission is free.

For more information, please email info@ubcacco.com
Check out our website at http://www.ubcacco.com for further details!

The Asian Canadian Cultural Organization (ACCO) is a non-profit student collective dedicated to generating greater awareness of Pan-Asian Canadian issues through campus and community outreach.

Attack on UBC Womyn’s Centre Threatens Feminist and LGBT Community

01 Monday Oct 2007

Posted by antigonemagazine in Gay Rights, Violence against women, Young women, Your Voice

≈ Leave a comment


In light of the recent druggings at the UBC Beta Theta Pi fraternity party, I’d also like to make mention of the attack on the Womyn’s Centre which happened on September 19th. An individual tore down posters and graffitied anti-feminist and homophobic messages in the Womyn’s Centre lounge and on its message board. For those like myself who are involved with the Womyn’s Centre, the attack has left us threatened, demeaned and afraid. Because the attack happened on campus, it isn’t very comforting that we go to school where individuals who are fundamentally against women’s and LGBT rights coexist among us. Furthermore, the Womyn’s Centre is a designated safe place. The attack threatens and undermines the function of the positive, liberal space provided by the Centre
and by the University. An excerpt from the official statement released by Erin Innes of the Womyn’s Centre the day after the attack is as follows:

“Clearly this attack indicates what we all knew already — that whatever the university would like to think, gender-based oppression and violence is alive and well on this campus, and the need for services and spaces to name and organize against gender-based oppression are vital to the safety of our community and should be supported in every way possible. For myself, this attack has left me feeling frightened and threatened in the one place on campus where I have always up to now felt the most safe, the most respected. I believe that the most immediate way that we can respond to this attack is to send a message that violence is not tolerated on our campus, that the people who use our centre are not a nameless, faceless, voiceless minority that can be victimized in this way with impunity.”


Even though there was a small article (or, as I saw it, a “blip”) in the Monday, September 25th issue of the Ubyssey reporting the attack on the Womyn’s Centre, the paper made no effort to discuss what such an attack could mean for women and/or the LGBT community on campus. It could just be my bias, but I felt that an attack on a designated safe place on university grounds would take precedence over the headliner about VPD recruitment. As for solutions, the Centre has suggested putting up posters to increase awareness. I also encourage people to write editorials to the Ubyssey or other media. Don’t be afraid to express your rights and opinions.

What I’d like to stress is that more attention should be drawn to incidents of bias motivated crime (and by no means am I suggesting that potential date-rape is any less of a crime). While UBC and the RCMP work to keep individuals safe, the question that arises is whether or not you can compare an attack on a designated safe place on university grounds on the same level as the recent drugging of girls at a UBC frat party. Can we go to a party and feel safe? Can we be Feminists (or women) and/or LGBT on campus and feel safe? Are we solely responsible for our own safety? It is unfortunate that there cannot be the same media coverage or attention paid to a kind of hate crime than there is to attempted sexual assault. In my mind, the two are interrelated. Both incidents attacked the safety of women and men and demand equal attention.

Attack on UBC Womyn’s Centre Threatens Feminist and LGBT Community

30 Sunday Sep 2007

Posted by kelizabethlau in Gay Rights, Violence against women, Young women, Your Voice

≈ Leave a comment


In light of the recent druggings at the UBC Beta Theta Pi fraternity party, I’d also like to make mention of the attack on the Womyn’s Centre which happened on September 19th. An individual tore down posters and graffitied anti-feminist and homophobic messages in the Womyn’s Centre lounge and on its message board. For those like myself who are involved with the Womyn’s Centre, the attack has left us threatened, demeaned and afraid. Because the attack happened on campus, it isn’t very comforting that we go to school where individuals who are fundamentally against women’s and LGBT rights coexist among us. Furthermore, the Womyn’s Centre is a designated safe place. The attack threatens and undermines the function of the positive, liberal space provided by the Centre
and by the University. An excerpt from the official statement released by Erin Innes of the Womyn’s Centre the day after the attack is as follows:

“Clearly this attack indicates what we all knew already — that whatever the university would like to think, gender-based oppression and violence is alive and well on this campus, and the need for services and spaces to name and organize against gender-based oppression are vital to the safety of our community and should be supported in every way possible. For myself, this attack has left me feeling frightened and threatened in the one place on campus where I have always up to now felt the most safe, the most respected. I believe that the most immediate way that we can respond to this attack is to send a message that violence is not tolerated on our campus, that the people who use our centre are not a nameless, faceless, voiceless minority that can be victimized in this way with impunity.”


Even though there was a small article (or, as I saw it, a “blip”) in the Monday, September 25th issue of the Ubyssey reporting the attack on the Womyn’s Centre, the paper made no effort to discuss what such an attack could mean for women and/or the LGBT community on campus. It could just be my bias, but I felt that an attack on a designated safe place on university grounds would take precedence over the headliner about VPD recruitment. As for solutions, the Centre has suggested putting up posters to increase awareness. I also encourage people to write editorials to the Ubyssey or other media. Don’t be afraid to express your rights and opinions.

What I’d like to stress is that more attention should be drawn to incidents of bias motivated crime (and by no means am I suggesting that potential date-rape is any less of a crime). While UBC and the RCMP work to keep individuals safe, the question that arises is whether or not you can compare an attack on a designated safe place on university grounds on the same level as the recent drugging of girls at a UBC frat party. Can we go to a party and feel safe? Can we be Feminists (or women) and/or LGBT on campus and feel safe? Are we solely responsible for our own safety? It is unfortunate that there cannot be the same media coverage or attention paid to a kind of hate crime than there is to attempted sexual assault. In my mind, the two are interrelated. Both incidents attacked the safety of women and men and demand equal attention.

Corresponding with a Sports Writer about Homophobia

18 Tuesday Sep 2007

Posted by antigonemagazine in Gay Rights

≈ Leave a comment

So… last week I did something I don’t normally do! I wrote an e-mail to a sports columnist from msn.ca about a column he had written about Breakfast with Scott (what some might call the Gay Hockey Movie) that I thought was homophobic.

Mr. Carefoot, the columnist, was very gracious with my criticism and responded to me twice, for which I thank him. Please note that I am not trying to attack him personally with this post, but only to look at the ways in which, journalists especially, must be careful with the language they use and with what that language and rhetoric suggests or implies.
What bothered me about the article was the way in which he contextualized the issue – which was to talk about it as though it were the worst thing that could happen and refer only to the controversy and anger that people would have because of it, instead of thinking about how this might also be liberating for some hockey fans. Here’s a couple of excerpts:

Of course, there are those who believe that a very clear statement is being presented with this tacit approval from the NHL – such as the unironically-named “Americans for Truth” website, which wrote, “As a work of homosexual propaganda, the film is clearly meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians.”

Regardless of the intent of the film-makers, it’s impossible to ignore the significance of the fact that the NHL and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment allowed their valuable brand to be associated with this film. To put it in perspective, imagine the response if somebody tried to get the Dallas Cowboys to allow the use of their iconic blue-and-white star in a similarly-themed movie.

If there was going to be a major sports league to make this leap first, it pretty much had to be the one with the most Canadian performers and consumers. Like it or not, this subject continues to be a significant difference in fundamental values between Canadians and Americans.

However you feel about the issue, it’s worth noting that there has yet to be a player who is publicly “out” during his NHL career. And if there is a more macho sports environment than the average hockey locker room, good luck finding it. With that in consideration – however you feel about the NHL and it’s involvement with this movie – this is a bold move.

“Breakfast With Scot” is scheduled for wide release in November. Have you seen it? Will you see it? Or will you burn your Maple Leafs jersey in protest? You know how to let us know…

I wrote the author telling him that I thought his article was implicitly homophobic. Although he doesn’t say that homosexuality is a bad thing he implies that it is and only expects anger and outrage from the movie. Nowhere in his article did he quote a gay rights group, or the makers of the movie in order to give their perspective on the issue, and yet he quoted the ‘Americans for Truth’ website, arguably a highly biased and very homophobic institution.

He also uses some highly leading language and examples – by including the example of the Dallas Cowboys and then by asking in his final sentence whether the reader will burn their Maple Leaf jersey in protest. What about asking whether they will become a Maple Leaf fan in celebration and appreciation – which I’m sure many Canadian sports fans who also support the GLTB community will?

For some reason this article really upset me. At the end of our correspondence Mr. Carefoot pleaded out of resposibility saying he was a sports columnist and not trying to write a political article. But the everything is political isn’t it? And jounalists have a particular responsibility for the words that they write because of how our culture magnifies their voices.
I will leave you with an excerpt from an article written by Amanda Sung that will appear in the next issue of Antigone Magazine. It’s about the ways in which female politicians are portrayed in the media and how it impacts their credibility in very real ways. Here she talks about how what journalists write becomes an agent of normalization.
What Mr. Carefoot is perpetuating is that an angry reaction to a movie about a gay hockey player is normal, natural, and indeed the only reaction one can have. Whether he is just a sports journalist or not, it is my belief that he has a responsibility to not perpetuate prejudice and to be very careful about what he writes because of the fact that his words reach and influence such a great body of people.

Although millions of people read news on a daily basis, few of them are aware of the ideological implications embedded in what they read. The unawareness among the audience originates from Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy of hegemony, where social inequalities clearly exist but often go unnoticed. Hegemony stands for the notion that “the dominant classes exercise social and cultural leadership” over the subordinate groups without a trace of violence.

The way that hegemony functions in the news is through “representing opinions of the powerful”, such as the male politicians or the group of people that advocate normative values as well as what the public considers as consensus, and so on. Another reason that inherent social inequalities are often unseen is the ways the journalists construct news, which is the most common daily dose for citizens.

In the majority of mainstream news contents, the journalists compose their stories in the manner of what is considered objectivity. By subscribing to the characteristics of “objectivity”, mainstream journalists construct their news stories as if what is presented in the news is normative and how things “ought to be”.

Who has the access to be quoted, define an issue, or make a statement in a news story is chosen by the journalist in order to avoid being controversial and meet commercial logic. The hierarchical relations of whose voice is credible, acceptable, or representative of the dominant group embedded in the mind of a mainstream journalist results in marginalization of alternative, subordinate social groups, and depoliticization of important issues, in this case, gender equality.

Corresponding with a Sports Writer about Homophobia

18 Tuesday Sep 2007

Posted by Amanda in Gay Rights

≈ Leave a comment

So… last week I did something I don’t normally do! I wrote an e-mail to a sports columnist from msn.ca about a column he had written about Breakfast with Scott (what some might call the Gay Hockey Movie) that I thought was homophobic.

Mr. Carefoot, the columnist, was very gracious with my criticism and responded to me twice, for which I thank him. Please note that I am not trying to attack him personally with this post, but only to look at the ways in which, journalists especially, must be careful with the language they use and with what that language and rhetoric suggests or implies.
What bothered me about the article was the way in which he contextualized the issue – which was to talk about it as though it were the worst thing that could happen and refer only to the controversy and anger that people would have because of it, instead of thinking about how this might also be liberating for some hockey fans. Here’s a couple of excerpts:

Of course, there are those who believe that a very clear statement is being presented with this tacit approval from the NHL – such as the unironically-named “Americans for Truth” website, which wrote, “As a work of homosexual propaganda, the film is clearly meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians.”

Regardless of the intent of the film-makers, it’s impossible to ignore the significance of the fact that the NHL and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment allowed their valuable brand to be associated with this film. To put it in perspective, imagine the response if somebody tried to get the Dallas Cowboys to allow the use of their iconic blue-and-white star in a similarly-themed movie.

If there was going to be a major sports league to make this leap first, it pretty much had to be the one with the most Canadian performers and consumers. Like it or not, this subject continues to be a significant difference in fundamental values between Canadians and Americans.

However you feel about the issue, it’s worth noting that there has yet to be a player who is publicly “out” during his NHL career. And if there is a more macho sports environment than the average hockey locker room, good luck finding it. With that in consideration – however you feel about the NHL and it’s involvement with this movie – this is a bold move.

“Breakfast With Scot” is scheduled for wide release in November. Have you seen it? Will you see it? Or will you burn your Maple Leafs jersey in protest? You know how to let us know…

I wrote the author telling him that I thought his article was implicitly homophobic. Although he doesn’t say that homosexuality is a bad thing he implies that it is and only expects anger and outrage from the movie. Nowhere in his article did he quote a gay rights group, or the makers of the movie in order to give their perspective on the issue, and yet he quoted the ‘Americans for Truth’ website, arguably a highly biased and very homophobic institution.

He also uses some highly leading language and examples – by including the example of the Dallas Cowboys and then by asking in his final sentence whether the reader will burn their Maple Leaf jersey in protest. What about asking whether they will become a Maple Leaf fan in celebration and appreciation – which I’m sure many Canadian sports fans who also support the GLTB community will?

For some reason this article really upset me. At the end of our correspondence Mr. Carefoot pleaded out of resposibility saying he was a sports columnist and not trying to write a political article. But the everything is political isn’t it? And jounalists have a particular responsibility for the words that they write because of how our culture magnifies their voices.
I will leave you with an excerpt from an article written by Amanda Sung that will appear in the next issue of Antigone Magazine. It’s about the ways in which female politicians are portrayed in the media and how it impacts their credibility in very real ways. Here she talks about how what journalists write becomes an agent of normalization.
What Mr. Carefoot is perpetuating is that an angry reaction to a movie about a gay hockey player is normal, natural, and indeed the only reaction one can have. Whether he is just a sports journalist or not, it is my belief that he has a responsibility to not perpetuate prejudice and to be very careful about what he writes because of the fact that his words reach and influence such a great body of people.

Although millions of people read news on a daily basis, few of them are aware of the ideological implications embedded in what they read. The unawareness among the audience originates from Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy of hegemony, where social inequalities clearly exist but often go unnoticed. Hegemony stands for the notion that “the dominant classes exercise social and cultural leadership” over the subordinate groups without a trace of violence.

The way that hegemony functions in the news is through “representing opinions of the powerful”, such as the male politicians or the group of people that advocate normative values as well as what the public considers as consensus, and so on. Another reason that inherent social inequalities are often unseen is the ways the journalists construct news, which is the most common daily dose for citizens.

In the majority of mainstream news contents, the journalists compose their stories in the manner of what is considered objectivity. By subscribing to the characteristics of “objectivity”, mainstream journalists construct their news stories as if what is presented in the news is normative and how things “ought to be”.

Who has the access to be quoted, define an issue, or make a statement in a news story is chosen by the journalist in order to avoid being controversial and meet commercial logic. The hierarchical relations of whose voice is credible, acceptable, or representative of the dominant group embedded in the mind of a mainstream journalist results in marginalization of alternative, subordinate social groups, and depoliticization of important issues, in this case, gender equality.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007

Categories

  • 2010
  • Abortion
  • american politics
  • Antigone Foundation
  • Antigone Magazine
  • Beauty
  • BlogHer
  • CEDAW
  • Charter
  • child care
  • Commission on the Status of Women
  • CONNECT
  • Darfur
  • Day of rememberance
  • Dec 6
  • Diary of an Activist
  • Dreams for women
  • Elizabeth May
  • Environment
  • Equal Voice
  • Federal Election
  • female politicians
  • feminist freethinker
  • feministing
  • Feminists Who Totally Rock
  • film
  • France
  • Gardasil
  • Gay Rights
  • Gloria Steinem
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Human rights
  • human trafficking
  • I'm a feminist because
  • immigrant women
  • In need of enlightenment
  • Legalized prostitution
  • LGBT
  • marriage
  • Masculinity
  • Media
  • Minerva
  • Mira Hall
  • Morgentaler
  • motherhood
  • NDP
  • Ottawa
  • Oxfam
  • patriarchy
  • pay equity
  • pensions
  • persons case
  • poverty
  • Pro-choice
  • Queer Issues
  • Race
  • Rape
  • Reproductive Rights
  • Retirement
  • robert pickton
  • sexism
  • Sexual Assault
  • Sexual paradox
  • sexuality
  • Single Women
  • Some Leaders are Born Women
  • Spivak
  • status of women
  • stereotypes
  • Stupid misogynists
  • The Feminist Scholar
  • UBC
  • UN
  • UNIFEM
  • US elections
  • vancouver events
  • Vancouver Sun
  • Violence against women
  • Women and politics
  • women in politics
  • Women in the Middle east
  • women leaders
  • Women's groups
  • women's issues
  • Young women
  • Your Voice

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • antigonemagazine.wordpress.com
    • Join 27 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • antigonemagazine.wordpress.com
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar